Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: OldRoy on October 11, 2015, 10:40:25 am
-
Edited:
My intention was tp post this in the "Obsolescence be damned!" thread but I was automatically logged out so this ended up, accidentally, as a new thread. Moderator feel free do do with it as you will.
I stopped buying the latest "must have" (nauseating phrase) photographic products a couple of years ago, sickened to a degree by the constant hysteria that seems to surround each minute development and by the way that the dangling carrot of technical perfection retreats at the same rate as we approach it: churn, a fundamental requirement of the economic philosophy that engenders these products. I admit that my financial position also makes it unwise, if not impossible, for me to succumb to the sort of impulse purchases for which I would once have effortlessly generated justifications.
But there's more to my position than that and it relates to the entire world of economics and its relationship with the increasingly disintegrating world that we inhabit. I see people slavering over the prospect of an iPhone "n" or Sony's latest full-frame camera whilst disregarding the fact that this relentless marketing contest takes place at the price of the most valuable thing we all have, which is our planet and all that it naturally contains (or used to contain.) Like DNA. Before today's out who knows how many species will have passed into extinction? And yet almost any challenge faced by mankind for our continued existence on a habitable world has probably been solved by billions of years of evolution. Its as if we live in a gigantic library where so far we've only managed to read a few pages of a handful of books - which we're steadily tossing into a furnace in order to raise the temperature a (wholly uneccessary) few extra degrees.
The relationship between these phenomena isn't too hard to understand although I can only attempt a simplification here. In a world where the proportional return on capital is increasingly allocated to the owners of capital, with an equivalent decrease in wages to the preponderance of the world's workforce, (who also constitute the market for the products they produce) there's a requirement for an ever-increasing number of consumers. It's the economics of the chain-letter/Ponzi scam. If the expression "The elephant in the room" has any mileage left in it, it's surely applicable to the issue of population growth, the underlying cause of every problem in terms of climate change and resource depletion: which, as far as I can see, is almost never raised when discussing the symptoms of the disease.
Of course whenever anyone dares to mention this (which happens amazingly seldom) the hoary old argument of decreasing birth rates in developed cultures (taking "developed" to mean wealthy) arises. Imagine what it will cost for the entire world to be raised to "western" consumption levels by the time such an objective could be realised, if it ever could. A few years ago James Lovelock - a man who for many years was ridiculed as a crackpot, until many scientists realised that his "Gaia" metaphor was one of the most useful tools ever invented with which to understand planetary ecology - estimated that for humanity to live on a stable Earth (ie one where resources were generally renewed) at the level of consumption currently enjoyed in "The West", the maximum viable world population would be about one-third of its current level. Now I've no idea how this estimate was generated but it strikes me, instinctively, as at least a pretty inspired guess.
I reflect on this every day as the headline news items now invariably incorporate the word "migrants" in the first sentence. A couple of weeks ago I saw an interesting TV news piece about the human-free exclusion zone at Chernobyl. It now exhibits an amazing resurgence of all kinds of species (the European Bison!) with astonishingly scant evidence of the disastrous genetic mutations we've come to expect - the catfish living in the pools of highly radioactive coolant being the main exception, and even they don't seem to have undergone any catastrophic changes. To some it might seem paradoxical that this piece cheered me up tremendously on an otherwise depressing news day.
-
If only we bought what we needed, then the entire economy would collapse.
Needing a camera to take photos is a genuine need. Wanting a slightly better camera that came out a few months later is quite different.
Needing clothes to keep you warm is again a genuine need. Wanting this year's team strip with the new sponsors name on it, because you only have last year's version is not a need.
Re population, it stabilizes and decreases as living standards rise. Particularly health and education.
I saw something on this a while back and the situation is nowhere near as dire as you would expect.
As for Chernobyl, what you do not see are all the critters that didn't survive because of radiation damage.
-
This is what I'd call missing the point comprehensively.
-
So what was your point?
I simply addressed a couple of items mentioned in your rambling post.
-
"Rambling post"
You're obviously someone whose attention span is better adapted to Twitter.
-
A famous French writer [whose name escapes me know] once apologised for a long rambling letter to his friend. Why? Because he said he didn't have time to write a short one.
Communicating with brevity is a real skill as it happens. So is making a succinct point.
Which you still haven't said what it was yet.
You are also making false assumptions, as I read all of your post and do not even use twitter. That's how I know post was rambling.
-
FWIW: Quote originally comes from Blaise Pascal in 1657, but is often incorrectly attributed to numerous others, e.g., Mark Twain.
-
Unfortunately not really a rambling post more of a rant? I suspect few will take the time to read all of it? :(
-
Nice post, OldRoy, and accurate.
Rob C
-
It's a somewhat delicate point to address on a site that exists as part of the advertising machinery that encourgaes us to buy the new products.
With, it must be said, a certain amount of misinformation either factual (ie insisting on the light weight of a mirrorless camera while neglecting to mention that going full frame increases the weight of needed lens by much more) or emotional (buy this and you'll take better photos).
All of which is a consequence of the fact that the existing products are now so damn good.
I'm not sure I see the connection to Chernobyl, unless you mean that only those of us with geater genetic resistance (to advertising??) will survive and beget a less manipulable population is several generations...
However there is a legitimate point that the wealthy but stagnant economies are less likely to focus the RD of manufacturers than the ones with rapidly growing middle-classes who will eventually catch up with the falling standard of living of those with comparable jobs in the OECD etc.
-
FWIW: Quote originally comes from Blaise Pascal in 1657, but is often incorrectly attributed to numerous others, e.g., Mark Twain.
Thanks, couldn't recall the name.
-
I'm not seeing any rambling at all. There's a totally straight line from the start to the end.
Seems like the sort of thing that might raise some hackles, politically, leading to accusations, however.
Pretty spot on, I'd say. Probably belongs in the coffee corner.
-
It is true that the never ending upgrade story serves the global economy much better than the environment. No doubt whatsoever.
Now, IMHO, things have to be kept in perspective for the following reasons:
- Few of the pretty high end cameras most LL fellows get rid off are discarded. They typically end in the hands of another photographer through auction sites. Granted, this may not apply to a majority of cameras being replaced,
- Cameras sell in pretty low absolute numbers compared to mobile phones, cars,... and that it likely to stay the same considering the increasing quality of integrated devices such as smart phones,
- Cameras are mostly designed by responsible companies caring for their image and the impact on the environment is mostly that of resources depletion, which is of course very real in its own right.
I am probably just trying not to feel to bad about myself... ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
FWIW: Quote originally comes from Blaise Pascal in 1657, but is often incorrectly attributed to numerous others, e.g., Mark Twain.
Cicero lived rather longer ago than Pascal, and it's attributed to him as well.
Jeremy
-
Cicero lived rather longer ago than Pascal, and it's attributed to him as well.
Jeremy
How much longer Jeremy?
-
How much longer Jeremy?
Marcus Tullius Cicero
Born: January 3, 107 BC, Arpinum, Rome
Assassinated: December 7, 43 BC, Formia, Italy
Blaise Pascal
Born: June 19, 1623, Clermont-Ferrand, France
Died: August 19, 1662, Paris, France
Jeremy
-
Marcus Tullius Cicero
Born: January 3, 107 BC, Arpinum, Rome
Assassinated: December 7, 43 BC, Formia, Italy
Blaise Pascal
Born: June 19, 1623, Clermont-Ferrand, France
Died: August 19, 1662, Paris, France
Jeremy
Thanks. Food for thought for the rest of the day. ;)
-
Thanks. Food for thought for the rest of the day. ;)
Question: has it ever occurred to you that the Romans counted backwards? (Be honest.)
Sellars & Yeatman, "1066 and all that"
Jeremy
-
Question: has it ever occurred to you that the Romans counted backwards? (Be honest.)
Sellars & Yeatman, "1066 and all that"
Jeremy
Jeremy, that's just how the tourist trade works!
;-)
Rob C
-
I once saw a suggestion to upgrade one's gear no more often than every second 'new-generation' model, with respect to technological products. It makes more sense than ever, I think.
By which measure original Canon 7D buyers (released 2009) would still be imaging away, unconcerned by 7DII, unconcerned about what is just around the corner, knowing it is probably 2 or more years before they will even look attentively at a 7DIII or 8D.
-
Perhaps even better to upgrade when there's a compelling need?
That's far too sensible to post on a chat show!
I have a good mind to report you!
;-)
Rob
-
Perhaps even better to upgrade when there's a compelling need?
That's my methodology. Though in the real world finances don't always allow compelling needs to be met. ;)
-
Ah, but there is probably no such thing as a compelling need, except for pros. For the rest of us it's just a game of I wanna.
-
Ah, but there is probably no such thing as a compelling need, except for pros. For the rest of us it's just a game of I wanna.
Well if your photographic interest is photographing say birds, there is a certainly compelling need for a 600mm lens or similar.
As without upgrading from your camera kit lens to such equipment, you will normally tend to struggle.
You most certainly need specific kit for specific types of photography, so either you don't do that photography [or even any photography come to it] or get the better kit.
Also if you find you are not getting your shots because of say camera shake, an IS version of your lens would be a compelling upgrade and not just an 'I wanna'.
Actually for pros, upgrading may happen less often as from a business point of view upgrading has to provide a return on investment [ROI], not just be a better tool.
So even if there seems to be a compelling need, you may not upgrade.
-
Well if your photographic interest is photographing say birds, there is a certainly compelling need for a 600mm lens or similar.
As without upgrading from your camera kit lens to such equipment, you will normally tend to struggle.
When you don't have something, and then you buy it, it's not really "upgrading". Upgrading is when you already have that ~600mm (ff equiv) covered by a zoom lens for your APS-C/MFT camera — with which you can take more than decent pictures — but wanting to buy a full frame camera with an insanely expensive 600/4 prime instead. It's hard to argue with what tnargs said, most amateurs never really "need" to upgrade to a higher end piece of gear that does pretty much the same thing but with better quality results. Especially these days, when the difference between the files produced by a $200 camera and a $2500 one is so small. Most photographers just like to buy new toys, but we almost never actually need them. It's not like you need to be able to get a certain level of detail/resolution/noise/etc in your files cause otherwise the editor at the magazine or the stock photography site won't accept them. Nope, it's mostly just the desire to play with a new toy, to pixel peep your files and say to yourself something like "wow, that's better than I've had before".
I used to upgrade my gear on the regular basis many years ago, but now the idea of buying some new hyped camera or lens doesn't even cross my mind. :) It seems like a waste of time and money to bother about all the new hot things that are released each n months, when the (pretty old now) gear I've got works perfectly fine. Come to think of it, I can't remember a single camera I've had in the last 5 years that I wouldn't be satisfied with today.
-
When you don't have something, and then you buy it, it's not really "upgrading". Upgrading is when you already have that ~600mm (ff equiv) covered by a zoom lens for your APS-C/MFT camera — with which you can take more than decent pictures — but wanting to buy a full frame camera with an insanely expensive 600/4 prime instead. It's hard to argue with what tnargs said, most amateurs never really "need" to upgrade to a higher end piece of gear that does pretty much the same thing but with better quality results. Especially these days, when the difference between the files produced by a $200 camera and a $2500 one is so small. Most photographers just like to buy new toys, but we almost never actually need them. It's not like you need to be able to get a certain level of detail/resolution/noise/etc in your files cause otherwise the editor at the magazine or the stock photography site won't accept them. Nope, it's mostly just the desire to play with a new toy, to pixel peep your files and say to yourself something like "wow, that's better than I've had before".
I used to upgrade my gear on the regular basis many years ago, but now the idea of buying some new hyped camera or lens doesn't even cross my mind. :) It seems like a waste of time and money to bother about all the new hot things that are released each n months, when the (pretty old now) gear I've got works perfectly fine. Come to think of it, I can't remember a single camera I've had in the last 5 years that I wouldn't be satisfied with today.
Welcome to LuLa; a sensible person!
Rob C
-
I used to upgrade my gear on the regular basis many years ago, but now the idea of buying some new hyped camera or lens doesn't even cross my mind. :) It seems like a waste of time and money to bother about all the new hot things that are released each n months, when the (pretty old now) gear I've got works perfectly fine. Come to think of it, I can't remember a single camera I've had in the last 5 years that I wouldn't be satisfied with today.
Upgrading digital cameras was done a lot to start with as it was emerging tech and newer models were markedly better than previous ones. Nowadays you can choose a camera based on the features it offers, as they are all darn good.
I recently bought some Olympus kit which is actually lower res than my FF Canon gear, but I was going on a family holiday and didn't want to carry hulking cameras with me and also needed lighter kit for other work. But the feature that sold the kit to me was light weight not the image quality. Heck my pocket camera is good enough for pro work now.
-
Well if your photographic interest is photographing say birds, there is a certainly compelling need for a 600mm lens or similar.
"I wanna" take photos of birds.
"I wanna" better and better photos.
"I wanna" 600 mm lens.
Wants, not needs.
-
"I wanna" take photos of birds.
"I wanna" better and better photos.
"I wanna" 600 mm lens.
Wants, not needs.
No. I want to take photos. Thus I need equipment to take said photos.
The particular equipment depends on the type of photography.
To take your argument to its 'logical' end point you do not need any camera of any kind. Or anything really, other than the bottom tiers of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
By not doing enjoyable things because they are merely a 'want' you'll probably end up being quite miserable. Doing things that make you happy/life worth living are as much a need as eating the things that satiate hunger.
-
There is a very real distinction in the photographic community (and others) between two different kinds of wants.
I want to take pictures of a certain type. There is, in general, a variety of equipment that will do it with roughly the same degree of difficulty, quality of output, or whatever criteria I choose to admit to. Then there is a subset of that equipment that I actually want to own. In general, I have reasons I do not admit, perhaps not even to myself, as to why, and they typically have nothing to do with any of the criteria I have outlined.
Almost anyone who owns a Zeiss Otus, for instance, will explain to you why they need it for the kinds of photographs they make, and almost all of them are rationalizing wildly, as there are in general a dozen lenses that are cheaper and would meet every criterion they care to admit to. And yet, they bought the Otus.
-
Well if your photographic interest is photographing say birds, there is a certainly compelling need for a 600mm lens or similar.
He he! It is my suspicion that a lot of photograpers profess an interest in photographing birds which is not actually matched by their interest in ornithology - but rather that birds are an exacting subject requiring high quality equipment, and thus justifying its purchase.
Of course I could just be an old cynic ...
-
Less people, better batteries...
-
Most gear that we upgrade from will have a nice second, third or even fourth life in the hands of those that appreciate it still. Not always a waste, people with smaller budget will get their gear now for the price they can afford, with bit of patience. As stated, its often still very good.
-
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2015/oct/22/why-free-markets-make-fools-us/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NYR+Free+markets+Iran+deal+Patti+Smith&utm_content=NYR+Free+markets+Iran+deal+Patti+Smith+CID_0e71744e4b8e8be2def018f108b4a527&utm_source=Newsletter&utm_term=Why%20Free%20Markets%20Make%20Fools%20of%20Us
Review of a recent book by two Nobel prize winning economists.
-
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2015/oct/22/why-free-markets-make-fools-us/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NYR+Free+markets+Iran+deal+Patti+Smith&utm_content=NYR+Free+markets+Iran+deal+Patti+Smith+CID_0e71744e4b8e8be2def018f108b4a527&utm_source=Newsletter&utm_term=Why%20Free%20Markets%20Make%20Fools%20of%20Us
Review of a recent book by two Nobel prize winning economists.
Written for photographic phools!
Keep your old camera!
Rob C
-
Chernobyl disaster cleared the area of human beings which is good for the flora and tha fauna. The data is there, the animals are there and they are thriving. The nuclear scare of the cold war and the industrious lobbies of Greenpeace and other airheads has created an image of everything that radiates as something profoundly evil, toxic and deadly. The misinformation and emotionally charged marketing has lead to reactions which well-informed adults would not have as individuals. A mass is another thing and an internet crowd probably one where the least amount of rational processing can be detected.
Now it seems that a radiation catastrophy is far less danger to the biosphere than the civilisation that caused it.
Which again leads to think that the dystopias of Margaret Atwood ( a brilliant Canadian writer!) hit closer to the mark the we would like to admit...
As for the hystery for better and better equipment, –photo, audio or whatever– it is driven by artificial needs. Artificial in this context meaning 'man made'. Would somebody 'need' a 50 MB sensor on his camera without the babble of the pixel peepers so abundant on all of the photographic sites on the Internet?
So now you can count the feathers of a squeekbill you photographed in the Northeastern territories near dark, half a mile away.
Who or what instance on this planet needs those feathers to be counted?
You do it because you are in a position to want it and you have the means.
Now, looking at the situation you can analyse the flowcharts of causality many ways one of which has to do with genuine ornithological interest, another has more to do with social status and still a third one would have the positive feeling of mastering the medium in its center. Somebody has a 'situation' at home that necessitates time out somewhere where the silence is broken only by the gentle 'squeek' from the weeds. Surely, there are other motives there as well but the well-being of the squeekbill does not rate very high in any of them.
People think they need so many things. The economy that is based on 'fiat' money, loans, interests and speculation, needs constant growth.
this is the economy we have now and it seems that it is the only kind of economy that our money people in their glass and steel temples are willing and able to provide us with. Everything we buy loses at least a fifth of its value once it leaves the shop. Make an exception here with gold, silver and some collectors' items. Most of the commodities go down while only a few go up...the lucky rich get filthier and richer while those who pay for their ticket, lose money.
And we are many.
This is the deep nature of our economy.
In the photography market we see it in small scale. The lenses I bought ten years ago now have their new versions out and they have become obsolete and very difficult to sell at any price at all. Which would be a problem if I had not bought them to take pictures, of course. Good Canon stuff that 'nobody' seems to want. They want the newest and the best, with top MTF curves and DxO ratings.
Why do you think there is such and institution as the DxO if not to boost sales. I cannot think of any other reason. How many times have you been in a situation where your picture is unacceptable because your LENS was not up to the job?
Well, another rant. I hope to be able to get home from here soon...
PS. The Ethylotest one has to pass before posting is a brilliant idea.
-
Why do the 'rich', whoever they may actually be, have to be considered filthy?
I've known some, been friends with a few, and they are neither better nor worse people than anyone else that I know to the same degree.
If there's a difference, it's that their fiscal problems often differ from ours and, in fact, they have a helluva lot more to loose than most of the rest of us. It's so goddam facile to blacken an entire class of people for the sin of being more successful than we are. Of course there are fraudsters, as there are con men at ever level of society. It's simply a matter of whether or not you get hurt in whichever scam that happens to go down. Does anyone imagine that no rich people have lost their shirt, underpants, business and home to bad luck, poor decisons and fraud by other people at either end of the financial balance?
Loss ain't reserved for the poor, any more than is filth.
Rob C
-
Well if your photographic interest is photographing say birds, there is a certainly compelling need for a 600mm lens or similar.
Or better field skills.
-
He he! It is my suspicion that a lot of photograpers profess an interest in photographing birds which is not actually matched by their interest in ornithology - but rather that birds are an exacting subject requiring high quality equipment, and thus justifying its purchase.
Of course I could just be an old cynic ...
Well one of the reasons I recently got an OM5II was to use the 40-150mm zoom, so when I go for a wildlife wander with the girlfriend I can get a shot of the wildlife that isn't merely a dot in distance.
I shoot almost exclusively wide angle on my Canon kit, so getting a long lens meant the difference between getting a shot or not bothering.
So definitely a need.
-
Well if your photographic interest is photographing say birds, there is a certainly compelling need for a 600mm lens or similar.
Or better field skills.
Not always practical or possible.
Personally I prefer to shoot wide angle but not often an option.
This mugshot was taken from less than 2m away.
The nest shot was even closer.
-
Or better field skills.
Not always practical or possible.
Personally I prefer to shoot wide angle but not often an option.
This mugshot was taken from less than 2m away.
The nest shot was even closer.
Having photographed birds and other wildlife over the last 45 years with lenses as short as 24mm and as long as about 800mm I'll agree that a 600mm lens can be handy when there isn't enough time or motivation to learn and use better field skills. That does not make a 600mm lens a 'need'. It's a substitute for field skills and patience.
-
Why do the 'rich', whoever they may actually be, have to be considered filthy?
I've known some, been friends with a few, and they are neither better nor worse people than anyone else that I know to the same degree.
In this particular case I use the expression 'filthy rich' of the people who live off the money market playing it as if it was a casino.
They do not do anything to add value to the products on the market but they are very skilled in inventing ways to get their fingers on 'other people's money' (you know the film?) with results like the banking crisis with junk bonds with nothing but air inside.
Those are the filthy rich, not people like Jobs or Branson or Madonna.
Gangsters and thieves are filthy rich, not just anybody with money.
-
Humans are not wildlife.
The fact that a population of short lived mammals can thrive in an environment is not proof that human beings, as individuals, would enjoy decent quality of life.
If one deer in ten dies as a faun, in hideous agony, that may be just fine for the deer population. It might even be fine for a human population.
It's not so hot for the ones that die, though.
This is the actual situation around the Chernobyl facility and nobody had ever pretended otherwise.
-
Having photographed birds and other wildlife over the last 45 years with lenses as short as 24mm and as long as about 800mm I'll agree that a 600mm lens can be handy when there isn't enough time or motivation to learn and use better field skills. That does not make a 600mm lens a 'need'. It's a substitute for field skills and patience.
Or time. People are rarely time rich. Particularly in the US with the limited holidays one gets there.
Or safety. Most people do not want to photograph bears say with a 24mm.
Or wanting to keep their distance so as not to disturb the animals.
Or because even with field skills the critters are too darn small
-
If one deer in ten dies as a faun, in hideous agony, that may be just fine for the deer population. It might even be fine for a human population.
It's not so hot for the ones that die, though.
This is the actual situation around the Chernobyl facility and nobody had ever pretended otherwise.
Never seen anyone acknowledge that when extolling how wonderful the wildlife is doing around Chernobyl.
-
Or time. People are rarely time rich. Particularly in the US with the limited holidays one gets there.
Or safety. Most people do not want to photograph bears say with a 24mm.
Or wanting to keep their distance so as not to disturb the animals.
Or because even with field skills the critters are too darn small
who said bears should be photographed with a 24mm lens? this was photographed with a 280mm lens and I had to maneuver between other people to get a clear view (the Forest Service was monitoring safety):
(http://www.wildlightphoto.com/mammals/ursidae/blbear01.jpg)
if you're disturbing the animal your field skills need improvement. I spent a couple of hours with this Mountain Bluebird as it foraged; at times it landed within 2 meters of me and at no time was it alarmed (250mm lens):
(http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/turdidae/sialia/moblue00.jpg)
I spent an hour with this jackrabbit as it fed and it eventually wandered within 3 meters of me (280mm lens):
(http://www.wildlightphoto.com/mammals/leporidae/lepus/bthare04.jpg)
hummingbirds are small (280mm lens):
(http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/trochilidae/calypte/anhumm06.jpg)
squirrels are small too (280mm lens with extension tube):
(http://www.wildlightphoto.com/mammals/sciuridae/spermophilus/cgsqui02.jpg)
All these photos were made on my time off - mostly weekends - from a full-time office job.
-
The fact that a population of short lived mammals can thrive in an environment is not proof that human beings, as individuals, would enjoy decent quality of life.
Exactly: ecology doesn't care about individual survival.
However I've worked on data relating to the health of the populations evacuated from the Chernobyl area and there are surprising features: while childhood thyroid cancer incidence is up by a huge factor (~90, but some of this is likely a screening effect), there is surprisingly little effect on leukemia. The thyroid is vulnerable due to incorporation of radiaoactive strontium from the milk of cows grazing on fields contaminated by radioactive dust.
There is also a high rate of lung cancer observed in the clean-up workers who were shipped in from around the (then) USSR... but then they were also "rewarded" with unlimited cigarette allowances. It could be that the effects of radioactive dust and cigarette smoke multiply, as do tobacco and asbestos, or tobacco and radon.
Strange though that while so many people want to believe that radiation from Chernobyl and Fukushima is bad (fair enough), it's very hard to get across the message that irradiating kids in CT machines each time they bang their head on the ground may not be a great idea... even though the doses are now much lower than 30 years ago, when adult settings were used for children.
-
There is very little concern of the cosmic radiation hitting frequent flyers. Very little is being said about the radon gas accumulation in houses built on certain types of bedrock. I t makes me smile when people actually think that there is something evil lurking in the forests of Kiev despite the fact that the populations are doing just great.
Of course the primary responding teams got mortal doses of irradiation, I am not the one to dispute that.
Probably there were stillbirths more than usual. I am sure that statistically significant increase in thyroid carcinoma was observed. Statistically...you see?
There was no deluge of monsters dying away in massive amounts.
Why not?
Because we are congenitally protected against the mutagenic effects of electromagnetic and ionizing radiation. Evolution wipes the wounded mutants away from the circulation. The fetuses carrying massive mutations miscarry.
Healthy ones prosper.
People are just so ignorant, scared and completely thinking with their glands when somebody says the word 'radiation'. Radiation is everywhere...it is just the dosage that makes the difference.
-
There is very little concern of the cosmic radiation hitting frequent flyers. Very little is being said about the radon gas accumulation in houses built on certain types of bedrock. I t makes me smile when people actually think that there is something evil lurking in the forests of Kiev despite the fact that the populations are doing just great.
Of course the primary responding teams got mortal doses of irradiation, I am not the one to dispute that.
Probably there were stillbirths more than usual. I am sure that statistically significant increase in thyroid carcinoma was observed. Statistically...you see?
There was no deluge of monsters dying away in massive amounts.
Were you there doing observations to document this then?
Why not?
Because we are congenitally protected against the mutagenic effects of electromagnetic and ionizing radiation. Evolution wipes the wounded mutants away from the circulation. The fetuses carrying massive mutations miscarry.
Healthy ones prosper.
That must come as a surprise to all those women over the years who have given birth to 'unhealthy' babies.
People are just so ignorant, scared and completely thinking with their glands when somebody says the word 'radiation'. Radiation is everywhere...it is just the dosage that makes the difference.
Except the dosages at Chernobyl are quite likely to be problematic. Unlike the usual background stuff.
-
There is very little concern of the cosmic radiation hitting frequent flyers. Very little is being said about the radon gas accumulation in houses built on certain types of bedrock.
There have been several large studies on aircrew, especially those flying over the pole to Japan, who in principle will receive the largest doses. The only observed increases in cancer rates are for melanoma and other skin cancers... and only in cabin crew, not pilots. It is widely suspected that this correlates with sun bathing.
As for radon, there was a a large european radon project to map emissions across Europe. The best thing you can do if you live on basalt is... stop smoking. Because the radon effect multiplies on the tobacco effect, if you are a non smoker it is multiplying on a base rate 15-20 times lower, so the absolute risk becomes tiny. You should probably ventilate a bit too.
-
This should be in the coffee corner.
-
This should be in the coffee corner.
Well discussion started as a LuLa article, so correct location.
You should probably ventilate a bit too.
;D
-
That must come as a surprise to all those women over the years who have given birth to 'unhealthy' babies.
And a great comfort to those who lost their babies due to miscarriage.
-
This should be in the coffee corner.
Better yet, The Lancet.
Rob C
-
To take your argument to its 'logical' end point you do not need any camera of any kind. Or anything really, other than the bottom tiers of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
By not doing enjoyable things because they are merely a 'want' you'll probably end up being quite miserable. Doing things that make you happy/life worth living are as much a need as eating the things that satiate hunger.
For the most part I think there is value in some of this notion. (Deprivation for the sake of deprivation can make one miserable.) I once added up the asking prices for the equipment on just the first two pages of this web site's for sale page. The total was somewhere in the vicinity of $200,000.00 This undoubtedly reflects only a percentage of the money spent in acquiring the items. It made me wonder how much "happiness" these purchases brought to their owners. Gratification "at the time" I suspect was high. Contribution to their overall happiness and wellbeing are another matter. "Yet when I surveyed all that my hands had done and what I had toiled to achieve, everything was meaningless, a chasing after the wind; nothing was gained under the sun." I think our collective pursuit of the latest and greatest very often is a reflection of this age old hunger for meaning, that is never met in material pursuits or acquisition.
That's one of the strangest things about photography as a pursuit/art. Some images that we produce do contribute to our happiness and well being. They can even be expressions of deep meaning for us that reflect our worldview in ways that perhaps even our words could not. And there is "some" relationship between equipment capability and our ability to produce those images. But it is not nearly as critical as we make it out to be. And often the pursuit of "stuff" (no matter what the justification) becomes a joy robbing hole into which we throw wads of money in pursuit of something whose root and attainment lie in an entirely different direction.
Rand
-
For the most part I think there is value in some of this notion. (Deprivation for the sake of deprivation can make one miserable.) I once added up the asking prices for the equipment on just the first two pages of this web site's for sale page. The total was somewhere in the vicinity of $200,000.00 This undoubtedly reflects only a percentage of the money spent in acquiring the items. It made me wonder how much "happiness" these purchases brought to their owners. Gratification "at the time" I suspect was high. Contribution to their overall happiness and wellbeing are another matter. "Yet when I surveyed all that my hands had done and what I had toiled to achieve, everything was meaningless, a chasing after the wind; nothing was gained under the sun." I think our collective pursuit of the latest and greatest very often is a reflection of this age old hunger for meaning, that is never met in material pursuits or acquisition.
That's one of the strangest things about photography as a pursuit/art. Some images that we produce do contribute to our happiness and well being. They can even be expressions of deep meaning for us that reflect our worldview in ways that perhaps even our words could not. And there is "some" relationship between equipment capability and our ability to produce those images. But it is not nearly as critical as we make it out to be. And often the pursuit of "stuff" (no matter what the justification) becomes a joy robbing hole into which we throw wads of money in pursuit of something whose root and attainment lie in an entirely different direction.
Rand
Nothing to dispute there: you nailed it.
I find myself getting a buzz out of my first digital body (D200) whilst the later D700 sits alone in its cabinet. The af 1.8/50 G I bought because of bad eyesight also sits doing not much after the first flush of excitement at crisper images, the older mf one is now being used again because I had to override the af so very often that poor eyes or not, manual focus was the only way to go for me.
So much for the newest and best. The number of times recently that I have regretted blowing a wad on that D700... but, should I want to do anything in poor light, it will come back into its own. Problem is, I don't want to do anything in poor light these days. And when I do, I'm perfectly happy to get noise, which I often add even when I have shot at 100 ISO. I just don't like clinically clean images anymore: they look anything but what I seek for my work right now; I like gutsy, not sterile, squeaky clean.
;-(
Rob C
-
Equipment can aid learning, or it can get in the way of learning. In theory, one ought to be able to increase photographic skills quickly, because photos are reviewable instantly and because it doesn't cost to experiment with the variables of aperture, shutter speed, ISO, tripod v. not, panning v. not, composition experiments, lighting experiments, etc.
However, having new equipment all the time could distract one from learning skillls, other than the new set of menus and options on the new camera. Plus, a familiar camera is easier to handle in situations where seconds count. The more routine handling is second nature, the more attention can be paid to why one is taking the photo in the first place. And shopping for new equipment also uses up brain space that could be devoted to intellectual and esthetic uses.
-
I just don't like clinically clean images anymore: they look anything but what I seek for my work right now; I like gutsy, not sterile, squeaky clean.
;-(
Rob C
Then you should try photographing subjects that are not clinically clean, Rob. The clinically clean rendition capabilities of a modern Nikon DSLR should reveal the non-sterile, gutsy qualities of your subject matter in all its glory. ;D
-
Then you should try photographing subjects that are not clinically clean, Rob. The clinically clean rendition capabilities of a modern Nikon DSLR should reveal the non-sterile, gutsy qualities of your subject matter in all its glory. ;D
As I do, Ray.
(http://www.roma57.com/uploads/4/2/8/7/4287956/1233698_orig.jpg)
-
As I do, Ray.
(http://www.roma57.com/uploads/4/2/8/7/4287956/1233698_orig.jpg)
Now what is the significance of this photo, Rob? It is said that a picture is worth a thousand words. Could you describe in less than a thousand words, the hidden meaning, symbolic significance and import that might not be clear to some of us. ;)
How does the graininess improve the image, for example?
-
1. Now what is the significance of this photo, Rob?
2. It is said that a picture is worth a thousand words. Could you describe in less than a thousand words, the hidden meaning, symbolic significance and import that might not be clear to some of us. ;)
3. How does the graininess improve the image, for example?
1. Significance. I created it, all by myself!
2. Nope, this one's worth two thousand.
3. It lends itself to the time/space continuum into which I wandered, quite by chance, that extraordinary day. I just knew that the most tiny soupçon of grain was the absolutely essential je ne sais quoi, the indicative key, even, to the expression of the deeper emotions that lay just behind the beat, the perfect counterpoint to the rhythm of the street.
Now there, I've gone and given it all away!
Rob C
-
It looks like a Man Ray!
-
It looks like a Man Ray!
Thank you, I think?
;-)
Rob C
-
1. Significance. I created it, all by myself!
What! You built the camera yourself and wrote your own software to process the image?? You are clever! ;)
2. Nope, this one's worth two thousand.
I suppose it all depends on the quality of the words. ;)
3. It lends itself to the time/space continuum into which I wandered, quite by chance, that extraordinary day. I just knew that the most tiny soupçon of grain was the absolutely essential je ne sais quoi, the indicative key, even, to the expression of the deeper emotions that lay just behind the beat, the perfect counterpoint to the rhythm of the street.
The essential point here, it seems, is 'je ne sais quoi'. ;)
-
It looks like a Man Ray!
No, it looks like a Woman Andrew. ;D
-
1. What! You built the camera yourself and wrote your own software to process the image?? You are clever! ;)
2. I suppose it all depends on the quality of the words. ;)
3. The essential point here, it seems, is 'je ne sais quoi'. ;)
1. Ray, I used to supervise my children's watching of Blue Peter...
2. For you, I would offer only of the best!
3. I always depend on the metaphysical to bring me through.
;-)
Rob C
-
No, it looks like a Woman Andrew. ;D
;D